Bhujbal kin got 14cr bribe for allotting Andheri land to bldr: ACB

MUMBAI: The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has found that NCP leader Chhagan Bhujbal "fraudulently and dishonestly" allotted a prime piece of land in Andheri to a private developer, in return, firms floated by his son, Pankaj, and nephew, Sameer, received Rs 13.75 crore as kickbacks.

In the 121-page chargesheet submitted before the special court on February 23 in the Maharashtra Sadan case, the ACB mentioned that there was "gross abuse of power" at all levels in connivance with senior bureaucrats, criminal misconduct and above all Bhujbal revived the Andheri slum redevelopment project, which was rejected by the state transport department more than a decade ago.

The public works department had estimated that the profit to the developer was Rs 27.15 crore, however, the ACB has put the figure as Rs 749.44 crore.

After chief minister Devendra Fadnavis granted permission to conduct an open probe, the ACB had on June 11, 2015, registered a criminal case against Bhujbal, Pankaj, Sameer and bureaucrats associated with the public works department under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. On the money trail, the probe conducted by the ACB has revealed that P S Chamankar Enterprises, which was allotted the contract for the construction of Delhi's Maharashtra Sadan, paid Rs 13.75 crore to firms owned or controlled by the members of the Bhujbal family. Parvesh Constructions was paid Rs 12.91 crore, Bavesh Builders was paid Rs 34 lakh and Armstrong Energy Pvt Ltd was paid Rs 50 lakh. Sameer and Pankaj are the directors of these three firms. Initially, the money was deposited in Origin Infrastructure, Royal Enterprises, Ideen Furniture, Harmony Investments and Nish Infrastructure, firms floated by Chamankar and subsequently transferred in the firms controlled by the Bhujbal family.

It all started on March 6, 2000, when P S Chamankar Associates submitted a proposal for the redevelopment of slums- Anna Nagar and Kasam Nagar-on land belonging to the Andheri RTO and in return promised to construct a new building. On February 2, 2001, the state transport department rejected the proposal, stating that the Maharashtra government had sanctioned Rs 4.43 crore for the construction of a new RTO building. Bhujbal came into the picture on May 16, 2001, when Chamankar submitted a fresh proposal for the redevelopment of the slum and the construction of the new RTO building. The chargesheet stated that despite the fact that Bhujbal was not even remotely associated with the transport department, he convened a special meeting on July 7, 2001, to consider the proposal. "It was the beginning of the criminal conspiracy with ulterior motives, as a result, Chamankar was given no-objection certificate for the redevelopment on January 1, 2003," the ACB stated. On March 29, 2005, he submitted a new proposal, mentioning that if he is given the development rights for both the shanty colonies in Andheri, he was prepared to construct the Maharashtra Sadan (Rs 45 crore), Andheri RTO office (Rs 10.52 crore), parking facilities and driving track at the RTO (Rs five crore) and additional 1,1430 sq m construction (Rs 15 crore) for a total cost of Rs 77.52 crore, later he increased the cost to Rs 86.52 crore. "Chamankar was suo motu submitting a series of proposals to the PWD on the slum rehab schemes and succeeded in securing the contracts. He was privy to all the information. It was not possible unless the department's officials were hand in glove with the firm. It was part of the conspiracy," the ACB pointed out.

The ACB pointed out that it was beyond the cabinet committee on infrastructure's purview to consider a proposal for slum redevelopment. According to the decision taken by the state government on November 6, 1996, proposals pertaining to development of industrial parks, ports, airports, roads, transport and dams can be taken up for approval by the cabinet subcommittee. "The development of a government plot from slum development schemes do not come in the subcommittee's purview,'' the ACB submitted.